<i>Pythium aphanidermatum</i>root rot in hydroponically grown lettuce and the effect of chemical and biological agents on its control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Experiments were conducted to isolate, identify, and monitor populations of Pythium spp. in recirculating nutrient solutions at two commercial greenhouses and to evaluate the ability of 11 chemical and biological agents to control root rot of lettuce caused by Pythium aphanidermatum under conditions similar to those of commercial greenhouses. The reverse dot blot technique was used for identification of Pythium spp. isolated from lettuce roots and the nutrient solutions. The population of P. aphanidermatum in nutrient storage tanks at both locations were fairly consistent ranging from l x 103 to 13 x 103 colony-forming units (CFU)/100 L from March 11 to July 21, 1998. Treatment with Boost (strain BACT-0 of Bacillus subtilis) at 1 x 109 and 1 x 1011 CFU/L, Promo (a nutrient supplement) at 1 mL/L. and Agrol (Amway) at 0.02 mL/L significantly increased dry lettuce and root weights and reduced the disease ratings compared with the control. These results suggest that the applications of Boost at 1 x 109 CFU/L, Promo at 1 mL/L, and Agrol at 0.02 mL/L of nutrient solution have the ability to increase lettuce production in the presence of P. aphanidermatum in recirculating nutrient systems. Keywords: biological controlchemical control Trichoderma harzianum Gliocladium virens Bacillus subtilis AgrolRidomilAliettesiliconModicellreverse dot blot hybridization
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".